There is a seemingly inexhaustible market for fishing equipment, no matter what the economic climate. Fishing is an essential industry, and it is also an immensely popular sport. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (1997), in 1996, 35 million people in the U.S. spent $38 billion on fishing-related expenses. That means millions of sport fishers are looking for an irresistible lure. However, there are so many variables to take into account that most fishers bring dozens of lures on their expeditions, and make their choice depending on their equipment, technique, the species of fish they expect to catch, weather, season, the water's depth, clarity and action and their own intuition. Commercial fishers also seek durable and dependable lures and must constantly replenish their supply. Although natural bait works well, it is perishable, so there is always a demand for a better artificial lure to suit each unique situation.
The prior art consists of a wide variety of artificial lures to meet different needs, but not all lures are equally well-designed to attract, capture and/or hold fish. Some lures such as U.S. Pat. No. 3,685,191 to Metzger have fixed hooks attached, which may bend and break, allowing the fish to escape. Preferably, fishers attach lures to their fishing line by means of a “leader” often made from heavier fishing line. Many lures of the prior art require the leader to be threaded in and around a series of openings, so that it crosses the lure before it is used to tie the hook to the trailing end of the lure with a specialized knot (a “Threaded Lure”). Examples include CA Pat. Appl. Nos. 2,637,822; 2,556,726; 2,626,707; and 2,599,267 to Jones (the “Early Jones Lures”); CA Pat. Appl. No. 2,047,387 and CA Pat. No. 986,306 to Gaunt (the “306 lure”); and U.S. Pat. No. 3,685,191 to Metzger. Threading the lures this way takes time, skill and patience, but more importantly, there is a risk that a game fish caught on the hook will bite through the attached leader with its vicious teeth and escape, with or without the lure. Often the hook stays lodged in its mouth, and the fish may starve or bleed to death.
Many lures of the prior art are meant for trolling, including the Early Jones Lures, and lures to Metzger, Gaunt, U.S. 2005/0252069 A1. to Pool & Spurgeon, U.S. Pat. No. 6,457,275 to Spurgeon, and CA Pat. Appl. No. 2,681,472 to Smith & Smith. Lures designed for trolling usually do not work well for spin-casting, and the latter is popular with sports fishers because no boat is necessary, and they enjoy the challenge of trying to execute a perfect cast. One reason many lures cannot be spin-cast is that, if the leader is threaded across the lure and tied to the hook, when the lure hits the water, the hook moves out of alignment, spoiling the action of the lure. The weight and balance of trolling lures may also be unsuitable for casting.
As explained in CA 1,287,210 to Lindell & Roalson (1987), a disadvantage of many lures of the prior art is that it is difficult to continuously manually jig a fishing line to simulate the movement of a bait fish. Lindell and Roalson disclose a device to move the line automatically, but this is a complex and not inexpensive solution.
Some lures are unnecessarily complex in design, sacrificing economy and sometimes balance and smooth action for the sake of novelty—commercial fishers in particular, who use and lose lures by the score, will not likely choose such complex lures because of the cost. Consider U.S. Pat. No. 6,108,964 to Noorlander with seven different precision bends, and some of the following electric lures.
According to Pool & Spurgeon, Spurgeon, U.S. Pat. No. 7,722,218 to Leung et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 7,240,453 to Safwat, some fish are attracted by a small electrical charge or electromagnetic impulse, probably similar to that emitted by their prey, and some lures of the prior art attempt to mimic this. However, if batteries and other voltage emitters are used they may make the lure more breakable and ungainly, and throw it off balance. And many of these electric lures must seem suspiciously unnatural or even threatening to fish. Other lures rely solely on the electric charge to attract fish, such as U.S. Pat. No. 5,903,999 to Petras. But the attraction of game fish to bait fish is multi-faceted and not entirely understood, so more than one attractor should be combined in each lure. Electric lures may be made of metals such as copper or brass that corrode too quickly, especially in salt water, and batteries often short circuit. U.S. 2006/0265932 A1. to Davis, the result of federally sponsored research, is simpler than most electric attractors, but still requires a voltage generator inside a hollow lure. CA Pat. Appl. No. 2,626,707 to Jones disclosed an even simpler method, but this Early Jones Lure had vulnerable fastening means and could not be spin-cast.
The best lures are often those that move and look like a fish's natural prey. Fish are hardly known for their intelligence, but some are wily, many are particular about their food, and most are easily startled. Many lures in the prior art look nothing like bait fish. Others move very little, or in an unnatural or menacing way. See for example Spurgeon or CA Pat. Application No. 1,228,985 to Jakeway. Movements of prior art lures are often erratic or random (i.e. Gaunt's 306 lure, Gage, and CA Pat. Appl. No. 2,129,209 to Gabos & Olenek) and undependable. Descriptions of some lures are not detailed enough for the movement to be reproducible. “Formed to oscillate” as in Spurgeon, is an example. Some prior art lures supposedly move like swimming fish, such as Noorlander, or preferably injured fish, such as Metzger, Calif. Pat. No. 986,306 to Gaunt, and Gabos & Olenek, but fishers are still searching for a durable artificial lure that simulates the appearance and movement of an injured bait fish to the fullest extent possible, and induces a “reaction bite:” the game fish is stimulated to commit to reflexively strike the lure.
Game fish conserve energy by seeking out injured prey, and injured bait fish may swim in a spiral or corkscrew pattern, so many rolling actions should be attractive. However, lures of the prior art that roll primarily in one direction may wind up the fishing line until it tangles. For that reason, few lures are purposefully designed to roll. The 306 lure is an exception, and sometimes rolls in a reverse direction, but only randomly, so eventually will tangle. Some lures that roll in only one direction include the patents to Metzger, Gage, Gabos & Olenek and one of the Early Jones Lures, CA Pat. Appl. No. 2,599,267. The other Early Jones Lures overcame the tangling disadvantage, but had other disadvantages in common with the prior art.
The Early Jones Lures were Threaded Lures shaped like fish without fins or tails. The lateral surfaces were concave on one side, convex on the other, arched in a single continuous curve from nose end to hook end. The belly was bigger than the back so the lure was asymmetrical. The leader-threading openings were at 45 or 60 degree angles to the lateral surfaces. This inventive combination resulted in a lure with a rolling action. The curve had two components, a transverse bend and a twist about the longitudinal axis. Depending on the material the lure was made from and the proportions, a specific degree of bend and twist was identified (within quite narrow parameters) that resulted in a reverse roll action described hereunder. This action proved to be very attractive to fish, and resulted in a reaction bite.
There were disadvantages. None of the Early Jones Lures could be spin-cast and since they were all Threaded Lures, their fastening means were vulnerable to breakage. If the fastening means were changed, the balance and action of the lures changed, and they no longer had a reverse roll action. This problem took two years of experimentation to solve.